New at Reason

March 20, 2007

In a feature from Reason's April issue, Sam Staley and Ted Balaker explain how do-gooder government planning is responsible for your traffic jam.

Comments

|3.20.07 @ 9:12AM|#

Comparing commuting times of people taking transit in areas with mass transit to the commuting times of drivers in all metropolitan areas is apples and oranges. It takes longer to take the train into Manhattan than to drive from the outskirts of Yuma to the center? Gee, you don't say.

A meaningful comparison would look at the commuting times of people taking transit to jobs in Manhattan vs. those driving to jobs tin Manhattan. How would that work out? Well, over 90% of the people who commute to jobs in Manhattan take public transit, and it's probably not out of self-sacrifice.

|3.20.07 @ 9:17AM|#

"During the next 10 years, the Met Council is planning to invest $4.2 billion in the highway system and $1.4 billion in transit facilities. In other words, the region's primary transportation planning agency has decided to spend 25 percent of its budget on mass transit."

I've seen these hacks pull this stunt before. They cherry-pick the budget of regional transportation agencies - the most transit-heavy segment of the transportation sector - to make it look as if transit spending is a high percentage of transportation dollars, even though the money spent by RTAs is only a fraction of total transportation spending, and virtually all of the other sources of funding are almost exclusively spent on roads.

A pretty sorry start; no way I'm wasting my time with the rest.

VM|3.20.07 @ 9:31AM|#

"ell, over 90% of the people who commute to jobs in Manhattan take public transit, and it's probably not out of self-sacrifice."

nah - cuz they can have a coupla beers and do some work on the train...

:)

|3.20.07 @ 9:36AM|#

Critiquing the government planning and spending that created sprawl and destroyed existing, successful (and often private) transit systems would have been an interesting read, but the chances of that every appearing in Reason are about as likely as a speical issue commemorating the life of Howard Zinn.

|3.20.07 @ 9:44AM|#

joe | March 20, 2007, 9:12am | #
Comparing commuting times of people taking transit in areas with mass transit to the commuting times of drivers in all metropolitan areas is apples and oranges.

"Minneapolis-St. Paul is about average. The typical commuter takes 21 minutes to get to work by car or 32 minutes by public transit."

There you go joe. Apples and apples in the Twin Cities.

|3.20.07 @ 9:47AM|#

I saw that, Matt. Makes you wonder why they put the misleading comparison there first.

Anyway, here's a link to the State of Minnesota's transportation budget.

http://www.budget.state.mn.us/budget/operating/200809/gov/338473.pdf

Scroll down to Page 6, and compare the "multimodal" line item to the state and local roads.

|3.20.07 @ 10:03AM|#

Scroll down to Page 6, and compare the "multimodal" line item to the state and local roads.

"Multimodal" includes aviation and freight. A better figure is on page 14. Notice the near doubling of the transit budget from FY2006 to FY2007. Transit is losing riders and yet they doubled the budget for it. If you look at the transit summary on page 21 they don't even compare transit use from year to year. All they measured from year to year was the number of hours buses ran and how many people had access to public transit. No mention of how few people actually used the service.

|3.20.07 @ 10:10AM|#

A meaningful comparison would look at the commuting times of people taking transit to jobs in Manhattan vs. those driving to jobs tin Manhattan.

And a meaningful discussion would be over the question of whether or not government planners are -- once again -- attempting to push people into "solutions" that the people do not, in general, want.

With the exception of places like Manhattan, people do not in general want "mass transit".

With the exception of North Podunk, S.D., government planners spend far more on mass transit than the user level could possibly justify.

But don't expect joe to compare them apples. He'll have some other flesh-shredding response for the likes of me. And people like me.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:11AM|#

I commute into Manhattan because parking is expensive. If I want to get there in less than an hour, I drive.

Commuters do NOT use mass trqansit into the city because it is more convenient or quicker; they do so because parking is a nightmare.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Great article. Thanks.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:12AM|#

clarification: I commute into Manhattan via trains because parking is expensive

|3.20.07 @ 10:13AM|#

Matt L,

Yes, it was nearly doubled, to 4% of the total budget. Not the 1/3 of the total budget the authors try to claim by looking only at the RTA. 1/25.

|3.20.07 @ 10:16AM|#

barnaby,

"With the exception of places like Manhattan, people do not in general want "mass transit"."

They keep voting for it, don't they? Even people who are in no position to use it. Taking cars off the roads during rush hour - the vast majority of transit trips - benefits drivers as well. I hope that was flesh-ripping enough for you.

Passim,

Avoiding a parking nightmare isn't an issue of convenience?

|3.20.07 @ 10:18AM|#

There are three types of liars in the world; liars, damn liars, and statisticians.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Sorry, joe, let me clarify again:

My point was that, for Manhattan-bound commuters like me, rail is indeed more convenient, and cheaper--for most trips. However, it takes much more time. If there were more garages in Manhattan, I would drive every time.

Dan T.|3.20.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Thanks for an interesting article...stuff like this is why I enjoy Reason even if I don't often agree.

That having been said, I guess it's true that one way to reduce congestion is to make driving and parking more expensive so poor people can't do it.

The problem: poor people still need to get around, especially so they can get to work and earn money for their employers.

Since we're against mass transit, how does this problem get solved?

|3.20.07 @ 10:23AM|#

Call me crazy, but is the basic point here that mass transit works well in high densities and not really at all in lower densities? This should not be a revelation to anyone.

I've lived in Osaka where you'd be nuts to own a car and I live in Kentucky where you'd be nuts to get on the bus. It just isn't efficient.

My only real gripe with the transportation planning agencies around here is they have this idea that you can build light rail and suddenly everyone will act as though land were scarce and start living on top of each other. It just won't happen.

|3.20.07 @ 10:23AM|#

They keep voting for it, don't they?

Not in most of the places I've lived. What happens is, the city government wants it, but people voted it down (repeatedly). So the city bundled their mass transit package in with major roadway improvement bills. You can't get the one without the other.

It is only in this way that you could say "people keep voting for it".

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 10:24AM|#

I think the take-away point is that if we properly invested in roads that we wouldn't have so many congestion problems.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:25AM|#

As a side point, I really wish both sides of the "transport debate would stop using NYC, especially Manhattan, as an example of anything.

Manhattan is the most atypical American city. (A German friend of mine, who has been all over the USA, once said that, of all American cities, New York is the least American.)

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:27AM|#

JasonL

A sage comment! Enough said, really.

|3.20.07 @ 10:28AM|#

My only real gripe with the transportation planning agencies around here is they have this idea that you can build light rail and suddenly everyone will act as though land were scarce and start living on top of each other.

My only gripe is against those transportation planners who:

1) decide that the way to prevent "excessive growth" and "sprawl", is to simply refuse to build the roads and highways that are clearly needed, and

2) still insist on bundling their light rail systems in with measures to simply maintain existing roads, so they get their way come what may

Other than that, I have no gripes about transportation planners.

|3.20.07 @ 10:30AM|#

Yes, it was nearly doubled, to 4% of the total budget. Not the 1/3 of the total budget the authors try to claim by looking only at the RTA. 1/25.

That's 4% of the state transportation budget.

From the article:
During the next 10 years, the Met Council is planning to invest $4.2 billion in the highway system and $1.4 billion in transit facilities. In other words, the region's primary transportation planning agency has decided to spend 25 percent of its budget on mass transit.

The 25% figure is for the Twin Cities metro area.

If you look on page 122 here:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/transportation/TPP/2004/TPP04Chapter5_Final.pdf
you'll see that they are planning on $4.1 billion for transit capital expenditures out of a total of $12 billion in capital expenditures through 2030.

|3.20.07 @ 10:31AM|#

I think the take-away point is that if we properly invested in roads that we wouldn't have so many congestion problems.

I thought the point was that government agencies are social engineers, not investors. But that's probably just my own very personal, highly bigoted, insanely misguided interpretation of the situation.

God, I can't stand myself.

|3.20.07 @ 10:31AM|#

Call me crazy, but is the basic point here that mass transit works well in high densities and not really at all in lower densities? This should not be a revelation to anyone.

I've been on business trips to many locations in Europe and Asia. Mass transit definitely works well in the center of densely populated metropolitan areas.

That being said, all my foreign colleagues still drive their cars to get to work. This in environments where very high taxes make cars more expensive to drive that most of the US and where heavily-subsidized mass transit is quite cheap.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 10:32AM|#

With the exception of North Podunk, S.D., government planners spend far more on mass transit than the user level could possibly justify.

I wonder why, around here, transportation is the only commodity in the world that doesn't follow economies of scale. Could it be that much of the cost of private transit is hidden from the user...?

|3.20.07 @ 10:36AM|#

Passim,

So, a whole mess of road widenings in urban areas, and the replacement of homes and businesses with parking garages. Is there anything else you'd like the government to buy you? And what, exactly, do you think the effect of dedicating much more of its land area to roadways (with the accompanying emissions) in order to make it easier for commuters to drive would have on New York City?

Jason L,

"Call me crazy, but is the basic point here that mass transit works well in high densities and not really at all in lower densities? This should not be a revelation to anyone."

Yes, of course. But you should take into account the time element. Where rail in being built in relatively low-density areas, they are rapidly growing areas. Transportation investments need to take into account the future - both the growth projections, and also the effect of transportation investment choices on how that growth will occur.

"My only real gripe with the transportation planning agencies around here is they have this idea that you can build light rail and suddenly everyone will act as though land were scarce and start living on top of each other. It just won't happen."

I don't know if you live in a growing area, but in such areas, developers typically fall all over themselves to build densely near transit stops - if the local zoning doesn't forbid them.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 10:37AM|#

barnaby,

You are may be right. Maybe what I observed is a result of what you observed.

|3.20.07 @ 10:39AM|#

I hope that was flesh-ripping enough for you.

You haven't even shredded my underwear yet. C'mon joe, I know you can do better than that.

|3.20.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Matt L,

You're making my point for me - they provided the budget for only one agency, one with a specialized mission, and then only looked at capital spending - in order to make a misleading point about transportation spending as a whole.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 10:42AM|#

Anyway, perhaps only governments could continue pour money into unsuccessful projects like this.

|3.20.07 @ 10:43AM|#

Jason L,

One more point - even in rural and suburban areas, bus transit plays an essential role in helping the poor, elderly, and disabled - those for whom the option to drive is not available, no matter how necessary and convenient driving may be. These systems no doubt amount to a subsidy for the users, but that's sort of the point.

|3.20.07 @ 10:44AM|#

Yes, of course. But you should take into account the time element. Where rail in being built in relatively low-density areas, they are rapidly growing areas. Transportation investments need to take into account the future - both the growth projections, and also the effect of transportation investment choices on how that growth will occur.

I don't think that justifies building the rail line itself, perhaps only the creation of the rail right of way. If future population growth occurs and the demand for rail develops then the building of the rail is warranted.

I don't know if you live in a growing area, but in such areas, developers typically fall all over themselves to build densely near transit stops - if the local zoning doesn't forbid them.

But do the residents use the transit?

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:44AM|#

joe

I do not recall having called for a wholesale destruction of the island of Manhattan. I was merely pointing out--again with the caveat that Manhattan is extremely atypical--that even here, driving is faster than commuting by rail.

I use rail (3 different systems) because I prefer not to pay large sums to park. But when I'm in a hurry, I drive.

JasonL's comment is spot on: where people already live on top of each other, mass transit makes sense; everywhere else, it is folly.

|3.20.07 @ 10:44AM|#

In NYC, we have the privilege of paying workers to sit around and do absolutely nothing. They even wear burgundy "I do nothing" jackets. Something about unions....

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Matt L,

How much is the public support of mass transit simply an investment in "feel good" projects that few of them will ever use?

|3.20.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Matt L,

"If future population growth occurs and the demand for rail develops then the building of the rail is warranted." And this is where we run into the chicken-egg problem. If the rail service isn't provided, with spending going to roadways instead, the development will occur in a manner that will be unable to take advantage of the rail system. Would you build your house in the middle of the woods, with no road access, because there is a right-of-way reserved for some possible future road project?

VM|3.20.07 @ 10:47AM|#

"A German friend of mine, who has been all over the USA, once said that, of all American cities, New York is the least American."

well, that settles it, then.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 10:48AM|#

They even wear burgundy "I do nothing" jackets.

These are people who occasionally man the token booths, but now spend most of their time walking around, answering questions, giving directions, etc. They're most certainly not doing "absolutely nothing". I'd say they're doing more than they were in the token booths, since almost everybody uses the machines now.

|3.20.07 @ 10:50AM|#

Interesting datum - in 2006, Philadelphia saw an increase in transit usage and a decline in traffic counts.

Do the residents use the transit, Matt L? Ridership levels vary from place to place. As the road system becomes more crowded, more use the transit.

Dan T.|3.20.07 @ 10:51AM|#

General question: are there any major cities in America or anywhere else where traffic is not a problem?

I suppose we could look at traffic as being a price of living in a city. Sure, we could triple your local taxes and build thousands of miles of new roads, but people seem to prefer sitting in their cars.

|3.20.07 @ 10:52AM|#

joe,

Yes, they selected one agency. One agency that spends 25% of it's capital expenditures on something accounts for only 2.5% of the trips in the metro area. Obviously at the state level spending on transit is a smaller percentage. With 12,000 miles of state highways to maintain tranist spending at the state level will always be a small percentage of the overall budget.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 10:54AM|#

VM

please don't be such a smart-ass.

I was just trying to point out that anyone with experience of American cities knows that Manhattan is a special case in almost every respect. Using Manhattan as an example in any study of transportation, housing, living patterns, etc., is not just comparing apples to oranges. It's comparing kiwis to apples and oranges.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 10:56AM|#

are there any major cities in America or anywhere else where traffic is not a problem?

Buffalo. Much of downtown has been replaced with roads and parking, leaving fewer reasons to go there and therefore, less traffic. I think a lot of medium-sized cities are the same way.

|3.20.07 @ 10:56AM|#

Matt L,

That 25%-2.5% figure is worth looking at a little closer. If transit is 2.5% of total trips, then it is perhaps 10%-25% of peak hour trips, which means each of those trips is doing double-duty by reducing congestion on the most congested streets during the most congested hours.

Also, keep in mind that this is capital spending, which is by its nature limited in duration.

|3.20.07 @ 10:57AM|#

And this is where we run into the chicken-egg problem.

And this is where we run in to the political philosophy problem. Should growth occur according to some regional master plan? Or should growth occur organically as driven by market forces?

The progressive will say that planned growth is a more efficient process, while libertarians will say the market is more efficient.

|3.20.07 @ 10:57AM|#

Passim

I guess you didn't know. Everything, around here, is better in German. Its like "deluxe", or "X...On Ice".

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:00AM|#

carrick,

Some libertarians would also likely make "natural rights" arguments.

|3.20.07 @ 11:03AM|#

joe:

The problem is that even 'rapid growth' around here doesn't mean what it means in major metro areas. We don't reach a very high density because people still want lawns. Nice neighborhood communities with a relatively close town center type shopping concept and a grocery is how people are choosing to live. I just can't see how public transit makes a dent. There isn't enough upside until density makes your life miserable.

To clarify, I am not opposed to public transit as a sort of welfare transportation option for the elderly and the poor. A few bus lines can be kept open relatively inexpensively. I am opposed to it as a major expense in lower density areas. It is inappropriate to try to engineer people into high density living and it is ineffective unless land is actually scarce.

|3.20.07 @ 11:04AM|#

carrick,

"Should growth occur according to some regional master plan? Or should growth occur organically as driven by market forces?"

Why does growth that follows government investment in roads count as "driven by market forces," while growth that follows government investment in rail count as "according to some regional master plan?" Both sets of investments foster accompanying growth. You think those miles of farmland become attractive for development without a major nearby road project, or at least the knowledge that one will be forthcoming?

|3.20.07 @ 11:05AM|#

Jason L,

"We don't reach a very high density because people still want lawns."

Really? Developers are allowed to build at 10-25 units per acre, but decide to build houses on half-acre lots instead?

Are you sure about that? Have you looked at your zoning map?

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:06AM|#

joe,

Many libertarians would perfer to do away with the former as well as the latter.

|3.20.07 @ 11:07AM|#

Grotius,

I know that, but we're discussing an article by two Reason Foundation - er, "researchers" - who are arguing for greater public investments in roadways.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:07AM|#

Is there a study out there which looks at how many mass-transit systems have lived up to or exceeded their "original" predictions?

Passim|3.20.07 @ 11:08AM|#

steveintheknow,

I'm new here. I've noticed a strange fondness for haiku--and I gather "joe" is the token liberal Democrat pseudo-socialist city planner, but I did not realise that everything is better in German. Great news for me! I did my thesis on the future of the German armed forces post-reunification. (That was in 1991. My conclusions were hailed as brilliant, and won me several awards. Sadly, they have proved to be all wrong. Which is why I keep a low profile and survive by translating Brecht these days....)

VM|3.20.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Passim - wait. Kiwis? What's New Zealand got to do with it?

Planet Manhattan *is* different. I'm just glad your Piefke friend didn't talk about fucking Boston, "it's the most european of american cities".

So is San Fran. So is LA. Lots of Miami doesn't look like Miami.

What cities would you prefer to compare?

Srsly: I think you're right about JasonL being right about pop density and mass transit...

It just struck me as funny to use a Piefke to be your authority. Saubreiss...

|3.20.07 @ 11:11AM|#

My bad, Rhywun, they wander around and do as close to nothing as possible. Or, quite possibly, they are earning their $40,000 a year (that's real barf, too). 3/4 are such mean bastards that I can't imagine them giving somebody directions. My point, and you may agree, is that it is a worthless job that should be eliminated but isn't due to unions. Surely the map isn't that complicated. Even if it is, keep a few do-nothing-jackets in Times Square.

|3.20.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Jason L,

Let me just say this - it would make little sense to build a major regional transit system for an area like the one you describe, unless there is, or will be, a genuine urban core with big-city densities to connect your nice little towns to. A collection of settlements like you describe doesn't need a rail system.

But however much the esteemed authors may come down against it, the preservation of open space, the reduction of pollution, and other environmental concerns are legitate public policy goals to be taken into account when deciding where to invest transit dollars. If a new 8-lane highway through Yellowstone could reduce some people's commutes by 10 minutes, would an efficiency analysis of commuting patterns be the only acceptable factor to consider in deciding whether to fund it?

|3.20.07 @ 11:14AM|#

Passim

Big time laughs!

So I guess there is only one more question to ask: Where do the Nazis stand on all of this?

Only then will we know the truth.

|3.20.07 @ 11:14AM|#

Nazis are big on highways. ;-)

|3.20.07 @ 11:15AM|#

You think those miles of farmland become attractive for development without a major nearby road project, or at least the knowledge that one will be forthcoming?

As a matter of fact they are. Many times, here in the midwest a housing development goes up before the roads have been upgraded or even planned to be upgraded. The local governments then have to play catch up.

In general, both roads and rails require advanced planning. However, some roads already exist and development is spurred more by avaiability of cheap land than availabiliy of transit lines. Spontaneous develop drives road building more than the other way around. Note this observation did not hold true when I lived in Phoenix, it was just the other way around.

Rail systems require much more advance planning because they are either there or not there. It's not the same as the pressure to upgrade 2 lanes to 4 lanes as demand increases.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 11:15AM|#

VM
FWIW, my Pilsner-preferring friend (and only Pilsner-preferrers can be my friends) has never called Boston the most European of American cities. I believe his remarks regarding that place were something like "very nice, but isn't this the place that gave birth to New Kids on the Block"?

Dan T.|3.20.07 @ 11:16AM|#

Buffalo. Much of downtown has been replaced with roads and parking, leaving fewer reasons to go there and therefore, less traffic. I think a lot of medium-sized cities are the same way.

I guess in Buffalo's case it helps that fewer people live there than previously. So perhaps less traffic congestion = city in decline?

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:17AM|#

joe,

On the open space issue, when light-rail was done in Portland, Or. part of the land that they bouught was farms and the like to run the rail on.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 11:18AM|#

BTW,

Hitler was a proto-Green, despite the Autobahn.

Anyway, I've lost my train of thought, so I'd better take a car instead.

|3.20.07 @ 11:19AM|#

"The local governments then have to play catch up."

The point is, the developers and buyers know that the government can be counted on to "play catch up," by building the roads.

And I can tell you, as somebody who's been there, that planning for road projects most certainly takes into account future growth, and that the growth fostered by the road project itself is factored in.

VM|3.20.07 @ 11:20AM|#

Seavas Passim! Freut mich! Hast Du etwas Zeit für mich?

(you'll also appreciate this one!)

Your friend is a fine man, indeed! Leiwand!

(And I see that your train of thought is run by Amtrak! Mine too!)
cheers

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Passim,

What is telling is how little the centrally-planned network of German freeways was used. Few Germans owned cars at the time and the Volkswagen - despite much fanfare - was produced in very limited numbers.

|3.20.07 @ 11:22AM|#

joe:

I know there are zoning issues, but that ship has sailed. We don't have a continuum of high density living radiating from Cincinnati. We are both speculating about what the world would look like in the absence of suburban zoning laws, but I submit that we are now in the situation where high density would be difficult to sell. There is little upside to living close to your neighbors if you don't have the other advantages of dense urban living. There are people who want to live on the river in big condos, but largely, money flees dense living around here. When people have the cash, they go get themselves a yard.

|3.20.07 @ 11:23AM|#

Grotius,

There would have been much more of that land used for roadways. We're talking about what to do about growth here. Even a two-lane country road take more land that a rail line, and you need a lot more linear miles of roads than rails to service an area.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:24AM|#

JasonL,

You know, in the Roman world, those who had money fled Rome when they could. They went to Campania, etc.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:26AM|#

joe,

The thing is, they built light-rail into areas which were going to presumably require lots of local surface streets.

|3.20.07 @ 11:27AM|#

The point is, the developers and buyers know that the government can be counted on to "play catch up," by building the roads.

I think that was my point about organic growth driven by market forces as opposed to planning roads to nowhere as the first step to spur development after the fact.

And I agree that the top 100 population centers operate differently than the rest of the country. Unfortunately, the bureaucracies in those locations frequently let a warped sense of social-values override the real market requirements.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 11:31AM|#

I guess in Buffalo's case it helps that fewer people live there than previously. So perhaps less traffic congestion = city in decline?

Sure. It's all a vicious circle, actually. The effects of building all those expressways have been just as bad or worse on the city as the effects of high taxes and unions that around here are cited as the reasons for the decline of cities like Buffalo.

|3.20.07 @ 11:31AM|#

Jason L,

"I submit that we are now in the situation where high density would be difficult to sell."

Three points. First, transit friendly development can be well short of what you're calling "high density." Of course we can't expect the majority of the population to choose condo-on-the-river density. Hell, I don't live in that density anymore!

Second, we have every reason to believe that there is a considerable part of the population that would choose higher densities than are commonly allowed in suburbs. Over the last ten years or so, what's happened in those condos on the river? They're building them like there's no tomorrow, and the price has skyrocketed, if your city is typical. Also, there are the in-between options, like attached single family homes - think of the Dursleys' home in the Harry Potter movies - 500-8000 square foot lots for single families, and even allowing more than one unit on a lot, by converting a house or outbuilding.

Third - and this is very appropriate to analyses of transit usage as well - it only takes a small segment of the market opting for the truly uban option to have a major effect.

Passim|3.20.07 @ 11:32AM|#

I was expecting joe to try to kill me electronically for the NKOTB comment. Apparently, despite his leftist leanings, he is a gentleman.

VM: neunundneunzig Luftballoons?!?! You belong in jail.

OK, nice place this H&R, hope to argue with you all again soon, but now I have to educate some children in German DRAMA (like there's such a thing as German comedy). I will drive my SUV into town just to piss off certain people. :)

|3.20.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Oh, and fourth, every study of why people choose suburbs over cities identifies quality schools and public safety as far and away the biggest drivers. The advantages that low density settlements have over cities are not inherent to the land use patter - some of the worse schools in the country are in rural area - but are a consequence of history and policies. Addressing the educational and crime issues in cities has made a huge difference in their popularity over the past 15 years.

VM|3.20.07 @ 11:35AM|#

Passim:

I got yer german humor here... "echt fett"

humor? say no more!!!!!

plus, the pop-punk song, cry for love (the other link) set to south park was hilarious!

You're also right about joe. He does get into sniping wars with the group of locals who argue with the joe in their minds. For the most part, Joe stays above that crap and discusses with people!

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Boston is an ok city, but if one is going to live in a city, why not live in one where you don't freeze your ass off every winter, have to shovel snow, etc.? If you want snow, take a ski vacation.

|3.20.07 @ 11:43AM|#

The point is, the developers and buyers know that the government can be counted on to "play catch up," by building the roads.

Filthy capitalists, expecting our public servants to provide basic services where they are needed. The nerve!

|3.20.07 @ 11:50AM|#

Transportation is only a basic need for people who like to drive.

For people who prefer transit, it's a frill.

Right, RC?

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 11:54AM|#

why not live in one where you don't freeze your ass off every winter, have to shovel snow, etc.?

I'll take snow over earthquakes, wildfires, or floods *any* day.

Dan T.|3.20.07 @ 11:55AM|#

The U.S. Department of Transportation puts the yearly cost of congestion at $168 billion.

Isn't this line the key to the whole debate?

The US GNP for 2006 is about $11 trillion. So that means that if all traffic congestion problems could be solved, it would improve our bottom line by about 1.5%.

So that's why we live with traffic. It's just not that big a deal, and the costs of eliminating it may not be worth the benefits.

|3.20.07 @ 11:56AM|#

Transportation is only a basic need for people who like to drive.

That would be the vast majority of people living in the US including the rich, the poor, the old, the young, and everyone in the middle.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Rhywun,

I hate to break it you, but New England has its fair share of earthquakes. Indeed, as I recall, New England has a middling level of earthquake risk as compared to the rest of the country. Not as high as California, but not as low as Florida. And of course some of the more devestating floods in the nation's history have occurred in New England.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 12:09PM|#

Indeed, as I recall, New England has a middling level of earthquake risk as compared to the rest of the country. Not as high as California, but not as low as Florida.

Actually, not as high as the entire West coast, the Rocky Mountains, the Ozarks, and about equal to the rest of the West and much of the South outside the Gulf coast.

I forgot to add "hurricane" to my list - I wonder how Florida fares in that :)

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Rhywun,

Hurricanes and other major storms hit New England from time to time. Indeed, the fact that hurricanes only come so often to New England might make things worse over the long run because inhabitants of the region don't have generational memories of such weather events. As I recall, in the 1960s tornadic weather hit New England and no one was prepared for it - it ended up killing lots of people.

|3.20.07 @ 12:16PM|#

Grotius,

People put up with the snow and the shoveling in Boston because the places that don't have them aren't Boston. Boston offers cultural, economic, and social opportunities that are unique to each place, ranging all the way from "my family lives there" to Fenway Park to the universities to the Biotech industry. You could say "But each of those things could just as well exist in Gainesville." Yes, but they don't. They exist in Boston.

When the best thing a city has going for it is its weather, it's not much of a city.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:18PM|#

joe,

I've been to Boston. It doesn't have anything over San Francisco.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:21PM|#

joe,

Or Seattle. Or the Triangle. etc.

dhex|3.20.07 @ 12:23PM|#

i really don't know about this whole "it would be faster to drive in nyc" at least during a typical rush hour commute. i get from downtown brooklyn to the upper east side in 35 to 45 minutes each morning. i can't really imagine a car doing that much faster, unless we're talking a "everyone else is dead from the zombie holocaust" scenario, in which case you have to factor in the fuel costs of having that neato grill with the spikes on it added to the front of your car.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:24PM|#

joe,

Indeed, I live within a stone's throw of two the most prestigious universities in the U.S. (and in the case of Duke University, I mean that almost literally). As far as biotech or the technology industry in general is concerned, RTP is the world's largest research park on the planet.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 12:26PM|#

dhex,

I was going to call bullshit on that too but there's just too many ideas flying at once now.

|3.20.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Boston has unique assets that San Francisco lacks, and vice versa. So?

You know what Boston has that San Francisco doesn't? My extended family. My network of friends. The places I grew up in. My professional network. It's not a question of whether any one place is "objectively" better than another. The key word in my comment was "unique." There is not place that is better at being Boston than Boston.

|3.20.07 @ 12:30PM|#

"RTP is the world's largest research park on the planet."

Yeah, and my dad can beat up your dad. Even if he couldn't, he'd still be my dad.

dhex|3.20.07 @ 12:31PM|#

except for the homeless shitting themselves and the evil little women who keep pinching people instead of saying "excuse me" like normal human beings, the subway is pretty ok. it beats driving like...is it too obscure or tasteless to make a joel steinberg joke?

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 12:31PM|#

I've been to Boston. It doesn't have anything over San Francisco. Or Seattle. Or the Triangle. etc.

Cities don't exist in a vacuum, and everyone has different tastes. The fact that Boston is not in the West or South is a big plus for me.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:36PM|#

joe,

This basically started as a result of this statement:

When the best thing a city has going for it is its weather, it's not much of a city.

This has the hint of "flyover country" snootiness to it.

Remember I wrote that Boston is an ok city.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 12:37PM|#

the subway is pretty ok

Y'know, I'm amazed at the sheer level of crap that car-people put up with in order to enjoy such "convenience". People think I put up with a lot of shit living in NYC, but I think that doesn't even come close to everyone I know who owns a car and their endless tales of breakdowns, insurance costs, etc. etc.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:40PM|#

joe,

It's not a question of whether any one place is "objectively" better than another.

And that was of course not a question I asked nor a claim that I made.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Anyway, my original remark remains perfectly acceptable (even light of your comments):

Boston is an ok city, but if one is going to live in a city, why not live in one where you don't freeze your ass off every winter, have to shovel snow, etc.? If you want snow, take a ski vacation.

|3.20.07 @ 12:56PM|#

Grotious: Raleigh/Durham/Carrboro/etc. isn't really a city. It's a college town on steroids. Sure, it's now a grown up college town, but it ain't a city. Heck, most southern "cities" are nothing more than a "downtown" where people work and get drunk surrounded by endless 'burbs. Is that what we're calling a city these days?

|3.20.07 @ 12:58PM|#

Grotius,

This is what motivated my statement, "When the best thing a city has going for it is its weather, it's not much of a city:"

"Boston is an ok city, but if one is going to live in a city, why not live in one where you don't freeze your ass off every winter, have to shovel snow, etc.?"

You brought up weather, you brought up dissing cities, and you asked what makes people choose Boston over the sunbelt.

Snooty yourself. Grab a snow shovel, ya wimp.

|3.20.07 @ 1:01PM|#

joe:

I didn't mean to suggest that condo living is the only model of high density living I can envision. There are townhouses and brownstone type construction near those spiffy condos. Demand on them just isn't high. Crime rates are high in those neighborhoods, and there just isn't any offsetting advantage.

The growth pattern here (and in my original stomping grounds in Louisville) is characterized by a hollowing out of the urban center and an increasing quality of services local to suburban townships. There is almost no reason for me to go to Cincinnati, and for what reasons there are to go there, I'm much better off living where I am and driving in (maybe 25 minutes). City planners are trying revitalization plans ontop of other plans. Very few of them work out. The one on my side of the river was successful because it wasn't in the city proper.

Overall, I have restaurants that are just as good. I have shopping that is almost as good.

The equation is not space and no services vs. no space and services. You can get space and services cheaper with better schools and lower crime and deer in your backyard.

As a side note, I've been to Boston numerous times on business related travel. I'd shoot myself if I had to contend with the city proper on a daily basis. The only thing that makes it possible to make a meeting is a corporate driver on someone else's tab.

|3.20.07 @ 1:03PM|#

The statistics cited for the Atlanta mass transit system (MARTA) are probably skewed due to the drop in air travel since 9/11. For many Atlanta suburbanites, the main use for MARTA is a cheap, convenient way to get to Hartsfield airport. (That's about the only time I ever ride it, and I drive my car to the MARTA station.) In 2000, air travel was near an all-time high. In 2003, air travel still had not recovered from 9/11.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:15PM|#

joe,

You brought up weather...

Hey, it is an important factor to me. But I never stated that it was the only factor.

...you brought up dissing cities...

If calling Boston "ok" is dissing it, well, so be it.

...and you asked what makes people choose Boston over the sunbelt.

Actually I didn't.


Grab a snow shovel, ya wimp.

I lived in rural upper New England for four years. A place where snow didn't leave the ground until mid to late June. I am more than familiar with digging snow paths that go over one's head and even more familiar with shoveling snow off my room on a near weekly basis.

|3.20.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Jason L,

What if the town centers in the new-growth suburbs you describe had their own townhouse and brownstone blocks? Think the demand might be different? How about if those brownstones were a few hundred feet from a transit station?

That's the issue here - what is allowed to be built in new-growth areas. If all that is allowed to be built are large-lot single family homes, then there will never be enough density to make the transit system effective.

"You can get space and services cheaper with better schools and lower crime and deer in your backyard." I know. The point is, the difference in services and schools and crime has nothing to do with deer in your backyard. It isn't the lower densities that lowered the crime rate or made the schools better.

"As a side note, I've been to Boston numerous times on business related travel. I'd shoot myself if I had to contend with the city proper on a daily basis. The only thing that makes it possible to make a meeting is a corporate driver on someone else's tab."

It's much easier if you know the city and live there. For one thing, you could take the T and not worry about the traffic. For another, there's a certain degree of acculturation when it comes to driving there.

|3.20.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Grotius,

"why not live in one where you don't freeze your ass off every winter, have to shovel snow, etc.?"

doesn't count as asking what makes people choose the sunbelt over Boston?

'kay.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 1:19PM|#

nothing more than a "downtown" where people work and get drunk surrounded by endless 'burbs. Is that what we're calling a city these days?

Where've you been? That's been the model of American cities everywhere for going on fifty years. That plus concentrating all the poor people "downtown" which helps result in the "better schools and lower crime" cited by JasonL above.

I'd shoot myself if I had to contend with the city proper on a daily basis.

Same here if I had to contend with driving and parking everywhere. To each his own.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:20PM|#

Lamar,

Yes, it is a city. Just like Los Angeles is a city. Why does a city have to be a concentrated, built-up landscape?

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:21PM|#

joe,

...doesn't count as asking what makes people choose the sunbelt over Boston?

Apparently you've never lived in the Pacific Northwest.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:23PM|#

One has to ask, is the only alternative to living in Boston living in Houston or Atlanta? And since when did San Francisco or Seattle (two of the cities I mentioned earlier I might add) become part of the "sunbelt?"

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:25PM|#

Lamar,

One of the reasons that European explorers didn't recognize the vast cities that First Americans inhabited in Brazil was because they didn't look like European (or other First American) cities at the time. Yet I'd say they classify as cities. They were spread out affairs though, without much of a center to speak of.

|3.20.07 @ 1:42PM|#

OK, I can see where this thread is going, and I'm going to head off some misinformation.

Los Angeles is not a city without a center; it is a city with several centers.

Los Angeles is not an example of a city that grew up around the car. It grew up around the street car lines (hence the numerous centers) and was converted into a highway city.

|3.20.07 @ 1:47PM|#

Ha. Hafta say that in Chicago at present--I can get downtown quicker by rail than I can by car during most of the morning.

One advantage of good mass transport and urban design is that it accomodates people who otherwise might not be able to get around. We're already having problems in the US with what happens with older people who really shouldn't be out driving due to their eyesight or reaction time. Good mass transit still allows them to be mobile.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 1:48PM|#

joe,

That seems like a perfectly acceptable model for a city. Indeed, it is just like the Triangle in that way.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 1:59PM|#

If one must own a car to do anything more basic that buy a quart of milk, it ain't a "city" in my book. And I don't know anything about your mysterious ancient Brazilian suburbs, but historically cities have always been about concentration, to a greater or lesser degree for sure, but limited by necessity to walking distances.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Rhywun,

...but historically cities have always been about concentration...

In the world of classical Greece and Rome yes. That wasn't true of the Gauls so much because in part they had no central capital city (like the Roman Republic/Empire* had Rome or Laconia had Sparta). And of course Cahokia was spread out over a vast area.

*Obviously this becomes less the case as the city of Rome itself becomes less important during the imperial period.

dhex|3.20.07 @ 2:13PM|#

"People think I put up with a lot of shit living in NYC, but I think that doesn't even come close to everyone I know who owns a car and their endless tales of breakdowns, insurance costs, etc. etc."

or alternate side of the street parking, which is a hellish pain in the ass. my wife refuses to get rid of the car, so i compromise by almost never riding in it. while it often does take her less time to get from downtown brooklyn to the bronx in a car, there are plenty of times where it takes her just as long, if not longer.

personally, i feel being in a car is far more dangerous than riding on the subway or other forms of mass transit. by a tremendous factor.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Of course several post-classical era European cities have been vast conglomerated neighborhoods spread out over large distances for many centuries. That is one way to describe Paris and its environs after all.

|3.20.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Grotius,

You should check out Peter Calthorpe's "The Next American Metropolis" if you're interested in a polycentric streetcar city plan that incorporates contemporary technologies and practices.

|3.20.07 @ 2:25PM|#

"Why does a city have to be a concentrated, built-up landscape?"

Because otherwise it's a town or suburb? I've lived in a few real cities, and there is no comparison between, say, the research triangle and New York City. If what you live in is a city, then NYC is something else.

Rhywun|3.20.07 @ 2:51PM|#

And of course Cahokia was spread out over a vast area.

Six square miles, according to Wikipedia. And 10,000 to 25,000 people. Sounds walkable to me!

My point is that a "city" is walkable for at least basic needs. This has always been the case since people started banding together for agricultural reasons or defense or whatever. Anything else is not a city.

Grotius|3.20.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Rhywun,

Wikipedia is wrong then (it wouldn't be the first time). Cahokia was spread out over 50 to 100 square miles, and it was in contact with lots of sub-units beyond that.

Anyway, I am not going to argue over the defintion of the term city. From my and from the historical perspective a city can be more than what you describe it to be.

|3.20.07 @ 3:09PM|#

These discussions always run up against the imprecision of definitions.

As I understand, Rhwuyn, nobody walks in L.A., yet it is certainly a city.

|3.20.07 @ 4:19PM|#

joe:

I think I'm catching onto a key difference in the way we are looking at things. From my perspective, and the perspective of everyone I know hereabouts (cultured in dispersed environments?), I would get on a train only after the freedom of driving were made too annoying to be practical.

If there were brownstones in the township? People would buy them if they were cheap enough. Presumably they would overtake some of the apartment rental demand. I can't imagine them replacing demand for single family units. Suburban condo units don't hold value compared to suburban houses. They are less space when more space is cheap. Only when space is expensive does listening to your neighbor's toilet seem worth it.

heyitakepublictransit|3.20.07 @ 4:34PM|#

I just moved to Las Vegas, and while I have ALWAYS used the bus system to get to work in the past 10 years, it's ludicrous to take the bus here. I can walk the 3.5 miles faster than it takes me to take the bus, so I walk now. I would LOVE a more efficient bus system here, but alas, 'tis not to be.

People in the western U.S. seem to be afraid to take the bus. I get warned in every city I live in that the bus is full of crazy people and that my coworkers would NEVER take the bus. That's just nuts. It's a hell of a lot cheaper than driving and parking and it IS nice to do a crossword on the way home. I occasionally have to drive, but most days, public transit or walking works just fine for me.

|3.20.07 @ 4:58PM|#

I don't blame the government for long commute times, I blame the herd instinct (or some such thing). Wouldn't it be nice if businesses spread out to the cities where people live?

LarryA|3.20.07 @ 5:11PM|#

They keep voting for it, don't they? Even people who are in no position to use it. Taking cars off the roads during rush hour - the vast majority of transit trips - benefits drivers as well.

I remember, way back when, San Antonio did a survey asking whether the city needed a transit system or not. The result was overwhelmingly positive.

The city projected high ridership and bought a bunch of busses.

Almost no one rode them.

They went back and redid the survey. The response was, "Yes! We need busses! Everyone else will ride them and leave me plenty of room to drive!"

I have also noticed that in every city where mass transit is a solution the government has to heavily restrict private efforts to provide transportation.

There's no bus system in the town where I live, and we sure don't have light rail or subways. We do, however, have four competing taxi companies, two non-profit "transport for elderly/handicapped" agencies, and a limousine service into the closest city competing for business.

|3.20.07 @ 6:15PM|#

To each his own.

Not according to the City Planning Cult.

|3.20.07 @ 6:30PM|#

"As I understand, Rhwuyn, nobody walks in L.A., yet it is certainly a city."

L.A. proper or all the surrounding areas? Many people walk, ride bicycles and use pub trans. Most don't though, and it is the absolute shittiest place in the world to own a car. Fine, all these little barely 100,000 people hamlets are now cities. I still think we are confusing units of municiple governance with the cultural phenomena.

|3.20.07 @ 8:58PM|#

Phoenix is currently building a light rail that was voted upon as part of a highway funding initiative. Lanes are being removed from some of the busiest surface streets to make room for it, and it will cross many other busy surface streets. The light rail will also take priority over surface streets to make sure the train runs on time. Forecasts indicate that 80% of light rail users will be former bus riders. The resulting traffic nightmare is going to be breathtaking.